It usually takes companies a while to realize just how much damage Brussels can do to a profit margin.

For many of the world’s best known American internet firms, it took just three years.

Companies including eBay, Twitter and Facebook boosted their lobbying spend in Brussels by up to 278 percent since 2014, according to new research published by Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that campaigns against corruption that looked at the public disclosures made by Silicon Valley-based firms on the EU’s lobbyist register.

“For decades, Silicon Valley companies have turned traditional business models on their heads,” Transparency International EU’s Daniel Freund said. “A similar phenomenon is happening in Brussels where they’re rapidly changing the lobbying scene.”

Coming in first among the internet disruptors is Google, which disclosed €4.25 million spent on lobbying this year, representing an increase of 240 percent since 2014, while Facebook (€1 million) raised its spending by 150 percent. The figures, submitted voluntarily, include information about costs related to lobbying the EU institutions such as money spent on staff, offices, events and membership in trade associations. Some firms only began disclosing spending on lobbying last year, like Netflix and Dropbox for example, while LinkedIn and Airbnb began doing so this year.

Many companies prefer to lobby the institutions indirectly through trade associations. Tech uses that approach, too.

Their mere presence is a sign of how much importance they’re placing on the EU’s regulatory capital. The main driver for the uptick in tech spending on lobbying came in 2015 when the European Commission launched its flagship digital single market strategy, a sprawling initiative designed to update EU law for the internet age.

Legislative soup

Since then, the EU’s institutions have been mired in discussions over draft laws and regulations ranging from updates to consumer law to plans to limit hate speech on online platforms.

So it’s “no surprise” that tech companies are surging in Brussels, said Julia Harrison, FTI Consulting’s managing director, whose firm advises companies such as Google, Netflix and Facebook. “We saw similar surges in the banking and energy sectors when those issues were top of the Commission’s in-tray.”

Companies that only recently increased the amount of money they’re spending on lobbying in Brussels are clear about why they’re in town.

“Imperfect government policies can have a particularly powerful effect on small businesses,” said Samuel Laurinkari, eBay’s lobbyist in Brussels, who referred to the Commission’s plans to introduce a single set of consumer protection rules across the EU as the company’s main concern.

And there’s no end in sight.

While the Commission is keen to be optimistic in its midterm review of the strategy, many laws are years away from being settled on, with deadlines regularly being postponed and institutional wrangling blocking meaningful progress.

“There are new actors who have come, lots of them which didn’t exist 20 years ago,” said James Waterworth, vice president of the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA). “They’ve gone from being economically insignificant to being economically substantial, so they want to be part of the policymaking process.”

Some tech firms have been around a lot longer than the likes of Google and Uber. Hard-hitting antitrust enforcement in particular is often the companies’ first real encounter with Brussels.

“Historically all the big American companies have had their fair share of competition issues, but the real bite has been in Europe,” said Thomas Tindemans, chairman of Hill+Knowlton Strategies Brussels. Companies with competition problems soon realize that it helps to have allies and supporters dotted around Brussels and in the institutions, he added.

Microsoft ramped up its presence in Brussels during the course of a decade-long battle with the Commission’s antitrust wing at the start of the 2000s. Intel, which was fined €1 billion in 2009, Qualcomm, which defeated a probe in 2009, and IBM, which settled an antitrust probe in 2011, have all used a similar playbook. Like Microsoft, once implanted in Brussels, their interests and spending have spread wide.

The long tail of legislating in the EU and the number of players in that process make it difficult to measure how successful all of this lobbying really is.

Internet firms can claim some victories, however.

A cybersecurity law, first proposed in 2013, introduced standards for important infrastructure like power stations across the EU. The law, which is still being implemented, included a special approach for internet companies, something they lobbied hard for in the negotiations between MEPs and governments.

Who’s my association?

Many companies prefer to lobby the institutions indirectly through trade associations. Tech uses that approach, too.

Brussels is home to about 15 trade associations working on tech policy, from DigitalEurope and the Application Developers’ Alliance to the Interactive Advertising Bureau and the Software Alliance. Their members overlap: Intel, for example, is signed up to 10 trade associations; Google belongs to nine.

When internet disruptors first arrived in Brussels, they tended to want to do their own thing.

“When we establish a permanent presence here, we will want to do it in quite an Airbnb way,” said Patrick Robinson, director of EMEA public policy for the homeshare company, saying they didn’t plan to join every association in town.

That reluctance to join trade associations rarely lasts, however, as companies that are bitter rivals in the outside world realize they share similar concerns in Brussels.

Uber, whose aggressive move into European markets triggered pushback from regulators across the Continent, is one such company waking up to the benefits of routing its demands through trade associations like the CCIA.

“Uber is more and more established in Brussels and therewith also becoming part of the Brussels stakeholder environment,” said Marloes van der Laan, a spokeswoman for Uber.

Concerns that there’s a glut of trade associations representing the same sector are growing, not least with the imminent arrival of the Information Technology Industry Council, which, like the Software Alliance, emphasizes its global dimension as its unique selling point.

“You have to be quite flexible,” said CCIA’s Waterworth, who said the fact that tech companies now have interests in so many economic sectors was putting pressure on trade associations to work on new policy areas. “You have to adapt [to what your members want] or you’re suddenly not relevant anymore.”

A consultancy free-for-all

In 2014, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker committed to reducing the number of draft laws the executive body churned out each year. While many businesses applauded the move as a sign he wanted the Commission to take a more pro-business approach, one sector was underwhelmed. Consultants, who number in the thousands in Brussels, have traditionally relied on tracking legislation as it wends its way through the EU institutions to pay their bills. The prospect of the legislative tap drying up put pressure on many to offer different services.

The one source of business they have been able to rely on, however, has been tech.

“I get these creepy people adding me on LinkedIn all the time,” said the lobbyist of one large American tech firm who spoke on condition of anonymity, describing how consultants were constantly trying to sell their wares to her.

“It’s no surprise that tech companies of all sizes are focused on Europe at a time when no legislation on tech is likely to come from the U.S.” — Karen Massin, Burson’s Brussels chief executive

Consultancies such as FTI Consulting, FIPRA International and smaller outfits like Cambre Associates are making millions through the advice they give clients on how to deal with the EU institutions.

With the biggest internet firms already signed to up consultancies, there’s been a fight for new business. Interel, a consultancy not known for its tech offering, managed to pick up one of the few big accounts left when it took on Alibaba, a Chinese e-commerce giant that recently opened an office in Brussels.

Some consultancies have started poaching accounts. Edelman, one of the world’s largest communications agencies, recently lost part of its contract with the Software Alliance to Cambre.

“There’s a lot of competition in the tech space,” Cambre’s CEO Tom Parker said. “If you haven’t noticed that tech is the future, then I think you’re missing a trick.”

Burson Marsteller, a U.S.-headquartered consultancy that works for Microsoft and Qualcomm, scored a big win recently when it took on John Higgins, former director general of DigitalEurope, as a senior adviser.

“It’s no surprise that tech companies of all sizes are focused on Europe at a time when no legislation on tech is likely to come from the U.S.,” said Karen Massin, Burson’s Brussels chief executive.

UPDATE: This article has been updated to reflect the growth in lobbying spending of Silicon Valley-based tech firms and exclude references to Amazon, which is based in Seattle.

Related stories on these topics:

wow

They’re lobbying is meaningless. Google have already stated London and London alone is the only place in the world can comes after silicon valley for technology, with confirmation of a whole new site in London and 3000 more staff. They said this *after* the Brexit vote: See CEO Barclays confirm this and also confirm after the Brexit vote that nobody is leaving London.

bojo's mojo

I don’t think this article is in any way meant to say “look, lobbying is up, so the economy must be doing great!”. I think it’s more trying to point out the amount of influence the tech industry is trying to get over the EU’s digital regulations. And given the ongoing discussions around privacy and cyber security, that may not be a good thing.

I do wish that they would put this new Brussels lobbying in perspective of the old Berlin / Madrid / Rome / Paris lobbying. It’s easy to say people are spending millions more in lobbying Brussels – but if they were spending that same amount previously in the member state capitals, it’s just a shift, not a new phenomenon.